A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
34.6% · rank 65 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Washington
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.66
+10.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–172025–26 recorded finals
112.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Washington.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1733 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.0Mean opponent adj. net 11.0 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 208 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 136 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 90 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 331 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 65 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 107 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 303 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 94 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.2 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.1 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.4% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.0% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.5% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.4% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.3% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.4% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.1% | 33 | Opponent assists / FGM. |
Window changes describe the historical sample; they do not refit the preseason model. Full-season ranks require 10 games. Percentiles compare qualifying programs in the model’s rated field. Source coverage can differ by metric.
NCAA source context / 2025–26
What did the possessions look like?
2,269 source possession rows across 33 recorded team-games. These are descriptive NCAA source aggregates: they do not assign individual credit or enter the forecast.
02 / The film queue
Turn a number into a question.
A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.3% · rank 90 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.1% · rank 303 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.3% · rank 331 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
These are stat-led film prompts, not verified explanations of a scheme. Lower-ranked factors can still be above average. A five-point-or-closer final occurred 7 times in the selected window; Washington won 1. That small-sample record is not a clutch-skill estimate.
03 / How the season moved
Read beyond the average.
● Offense● Opponent offenseRaw points / 100 possessions · game order
Mar 12, 2026 · neutral vs Wisconsin · L 82–85 · offense 124.0 / defense 128.5
Higher offense and lower opponent offense are better. Opponent strength and venue are not adjusted here. Missing paired boxes create gaps.
Open the game-by-game scouting log · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WisconsinMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 82–85 | 21 | 124.0 | 128.5 | 66.2 | 49.3 | 12.1 | 54.1 |
| USCMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 83–79 | 72 | 102.7 | 97.8 | 71.8 | 49.3 | 13.6 | 23.3 |
| OregonMar 8, 2026 · road | L 79–85 | 61 | 120.5 | 129.7 | 65.6 | 54.3 | 13.7 | 33.3 |
| USCMar 5, 2026 · home | W 91–72 | 72 | 119.7 | 94.7 | 76.0 | 52.6 | 14.5 | 43.2 |
| WisconsinFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 73–90 | 21 | 103.6 | 127.7 | 70.5 | 49.2 | 12.8 | 25.0 |
| RutgersFeb 24, 2026 · road | W 79–72 | 107 | 111.9 | 102.0 | 70.6 | 56.3 | 14.2 | 25.0 |
| MarylandFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 60–64 | 63 | 105.7 | 112.7 | 56.8 | 51.0 | 10.6 | 15.4 |
| MinnesotaFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 69–57 | 91 | 115.1 | 95.1 | 59.9 | 67.4 | 21.7 | 30.0 |
| Penn StateFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 60–63 | 103 | 91.7 | 96.3 | 65.4 | 42.6 | 18.3 | 34.1 |
| UCLAFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 73–77 | 27 | 111.2 | 117.3 | 65.7 | 54.5 | 19.8 | 37.9 |
| IowaFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 74–84 | 28 | 121.1 | 137.5 | 61.1 | 63.7 | 19.6 | 34.8 |
| NorthwesternFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 76–62 | 53 | 116.6 | 95.1 | 65.2 | 53.8 | 16.9 | 43.2 |
| IllinoisJan 30, 2026 · road | L 66–75 | 7 | 107.8 | 122.5 | 61.2 | 50.0 | 16.3 | 35.5 |
| OregonJan 25, 2026 · home | W 72–57 | 61 | 112.1 | 88.7 | 64.2 | 49.2 | 17.1 | 45.0 |
| NebraskaJan 22, 2026 · road | L 66–76 | 24 | 102.8 | 118.3 | 64.2 | 49.2 | 12.5 | 27.0 |
| Michigan StJan 17, 2026 · home | L 63–80 | 13 | 94.2 | 119.6 | 66.9 | 50.0 | 17.9 | 10.3 |
| MichiganJan 15, 2026 · home | L 72–82 | 6 | 101.2 | 115.2 | 71.2 | 43.8 | 16.9 | 38.1 |
| Ohio StateJan 11, 2026 · home | W 81–74 | 25 | 125.5 | 114.7 | 64.5 | 55.4 | 10.8 | 29.0 |
| PurdueJan 8, 2026 · road | L 73–81 | 9 | 103.3 | 114.6 | 70.7 | 50.8 | 18.4 | 25.7 |
| IndianaJan 5, 2026 · road | L 80–90 | 44 | 125.6 | 141.3 | 63.7 | 50.9 | 6.3 | 26.7 |
| UtahDec 30, 2025 · home | W 74–65 | 93 | 107.9 | 94.8 | 68.6 | 53.8 | 14.6 | 15.4 |
| San DiegoDec 23, 2025 · home | W 86–56 | 263 | 116.2 | 75.7 | 74.0 | 50.8 | 16.2 | 38.2 |
| Seattle UDec 20, 2025 · road | L 66–70 | 120 | 86.4 | 91.6 | 76.4 | 37.7 | 20.9 | 38.1 |
| Southern UtahDec 13, 2025 · home | W 105–69 | 285 | 147.2 | 96.7 | 71.3 | 60.4 | 2.8 | 37.1 |
| USCDec 6, 2025 · road | W 84–76 | 72 | 114.9 | 104.0 | 73.1 | 50.0 | 16.4 | 38.9 |
| UCLADec 4, 2025 · home | L 80–82 | 27 | 123.0 | 126.1 | 65.1 | 59.2 | 23.1 | 51.9 |
| ColoradoNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 68–81 | 69 | 99.0 | 118.0 | 68.7 | 39.1 | 8.7 | 31.1 |
| NevadaNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 83–66 | 59 | 116.1 | 92.3 | 71.5 | 50.9 | 19.6 | 38.2 |
| SouthernNov 19, 2025 · home | W 99–93 | 282 | 107.1 | 100.6 | 74.0 | 44.4 | 17.3 | 39.1 |
| Washington StNov 15, 2025 · road | W 81–69 | 117 | 129.9 | 110.7 | 62.3 | 56.3 | 11.2 | 34.4 |
| BaylorNov 10, 2025 · road | L 69–78 | 33 | 96.6 | 109.2 | 71.5 | 43.4 | 16.8 | 38.1 |
| DenverNov 7, 2025 · home | W 84–70 | 268 | 119.3 | 99.4 | 70.4 | 56.2 | 12.8 | 33.3 |
| AR-Pine BluffNov 4, 2025 · home | W 94–50 | 357 | 128.4 | 68.3 | 73.2 | 57.4 | 19.1 | 51.5 |
04 / The people behind the possessions
Personnel and workload.
2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →
| Player | GP | MIN/G | PTS/G | REB/G | AST/G | TS% | Est. usage | Usage games | AST/TO | 3PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hannes SteinbachF | 30 | 34.5 | 18.5 | 11.8 | 1.6 | 63.6 | 24.3% | 30 | 0.8030 games | 5330 games |
| Quimari PetersonG | 33 | 30.9 | 9.2 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 53.9 | 15.2% | 33 | 2.5233 games | 20333 games |
| Zoom DialloG | 33 | 29.6 | 15.7 | 3.9 | 4.5 | 56.3 | 28.2% | 33 | 1.7533 games | 7333 games |
| Wesley Yates IIIG | 27 | 31.4 | 12.7 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 49.6 | 22.9% | 27 | 0.8127 games | 17027 games |
| Franck KepnangC | 27 | 22.9 | 6.2 | 6.3 | 0.2 | 54.4 | 14.7% | 27 | 0.2227 games | 127 games |
| Bryson TuckerF | 21 | 22.0 | 5.7 | 3.9 | 0.5 | 49.1 | 14.5% | 21 | 1.1121 games | 4621 games |
| JJ MandaquitG | 22 | 19.7 | 5.2 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 52.7 | 15.3% | 22 | 2.5922 games | 3922 games |
| Desmond ClaudeG | 12 | 27.6 | 13.3 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 52.9 | 24.9% | 12 | 1.1012 games | 3012 games |
| Lathan SommervilleC | 22 | 14.5 | 4.3 | 2.6 | 0.2 | 51.4 | 16.5% | 22 | 0.3322 games | 522 games |
| Courtland MuldrewG | 18 | 14.1 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 48.1 | 15.2% | 18 | 3.6318 games | 1918 games |
Usage is a minutes-based estimate over the stated sample, not a direct measure of on-court possessions. Low-minute estimates are noisy. AST/TO is unavailable when recorded turnovers are zero; missing fields are never filled with zero.
05 / Recruiting evidence
What changed around Washington?
This panel keeps dated school publications, source-listed roster observations and prior college production in separate evidence lanes. A source record does not establish eligibility, availability or a future role.
15Source-listed players
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
84%Prior minutes represented
Role workload watch
Which source-listed role is represented?
Prior minutes are grouped by the source-reported position on the current listing. “Unrepresented” means prior minutes not attached to a same-program listing in this release; it does not establish a departure, transfer, eligibility or expected role.
| Role | Listed | Prior minutes | Returning minutes | Incoming prior minutes | Returning share | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard | 7 | 3,871 | 3,871 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 831 | 831 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 937 | 937 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,639 minutes).
No dated school announcement is in the selected review file for this program. The roster row below is observation-only; absence of a reviewed announcement does not mean the program made no move.
No announced additions are in the reviewed file for this program.
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
15 source-listed players. Prior rates below are attached by exact source ID where available; missing values remain missing.
| Player | Observation | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Prior TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quimari Peterson →G | Same programWashington Huskies | 30.9 | 9.2 | 53.9% |
| Zoom Diallo →G | Same programWashington Huskies | 29.6 | 15.7 | 56.3% |
| Wesley Yates III →G | Same programWashington Huskies | 31.4 | 12.7 | 49.6% |
| Franck Kepnang →C | Same programWashington Huskies | 22.9 | 6.2 | 54.4% |
| Bryson Tucker →F | Same programWashington Huskies | 22.0 | 5.7 | 49.1% |
| JJ Mandaquit →G | Same programWashington Huskies | 19.7 | 5.2 | 52.7% |
| Desmond Claude →G | Same programWashington Huskies | 27.6 | 13.3 | 52.9% |
| Lathan Sommerville →C | Same programWashington Huskies | 14.5 | 4.3 | 51.4% |
| Courtland Muldrew →G | Same programWashington Huskies | 14.1 | 3.6 | 48.1% |
| Nikola Dzepina →F | Same programWashington Huskies | 11.0 | 2.6 | 41.2% |
| Jacob Ognacevic →F | Same programWashington Huskies | 12.7 | 3.1 | 63.0% |
| Jasir Rencher →F | Same programWashington Huskies | 9.1 | 3.4 | 66.0% |
Showing the 12 highest prior-minute records. Open the full roster board for every source-listed player.
Recruiting review edition Sep 8, 2026 · coverage is partial (14 programs reviewed). See the full methodology and coverage map before drawing a roster conclusion.
Look ahead / 2026–27
The next assignments.
Checking the live schedule edition…
Baylor vs Washington
77.2Baylor
75.5Washington
Washington win estimate49.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.7
Projected total152.7
80% home-margin range-17.6 to 14.2
Estimated possessions68.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.7 pts
Washington attack 52.5% · Baylor defense 50.9%Baylor attack 54.7% · Washington defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
Washington attack 16.4% · Baylor defense 17.6%Baylor attack 15.7% · Washington defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 4.9 pts
Washington attack 31.0% · Baylor defense 27.9%Baylor attack 36.1% · Washington defense 28.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.3 pts
Washington attack 33.7% · Baylor defense 32.3%Baylor attack 35.5% · Washington defense 31.9%
Alaska Airlines Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Read the evidence correctly.
The top-line adjusted ratings use the full published preseason model. Split statistics below them are unadjusted observations from 2025–26. Opponent ranks are the current model’s ranks, not what was known before each historical game. The “top 50” split is descriptive and does not enter model evaluation.
Rates pool numerators and denominators from games with all fields required for that metric. Missing values remain unavailable; every metric shows its game count. Ranks require at least 10 games and compare programs in the model’s rated field. Ties share rank; percentiles use their average position. High percentiles mean favorable values only for metrics with a defined direction.
Player workloads refer to recorded 2025–26 appearances. Estimated usage divides FGA + 0.475 × FTA + turnovers by minutes-prorated team opportunities in those same games. It assumes team opportunity rates were constant while a player was on court; it is not a lineup or play-by-play measurement. Overtime is included in available minutes. Minutes and usage samples can differ.
Source statistics: SportsDataverse bulk releases, CC BY 4.0. Calculations and model: Silvermine. Definitions draw on publicly documented Four Factors and basketball rate statistics; these are not another publisher’s proprietary ratings. Model notebook →